America... Spying on Americans

@djjd62,

There are ways to be funny, but that is not one of them. Even as much as I disagree with Obama and oppose his policies, you can still get lost, djjd62, okay. So, get lost, and stay lost. Do not bother us here on this forum with your garbage and sewer refuse, okay.

3 Replies

@okie,

okie wrote:

djjd62, So, get lost, and stay lost. Do not bother us here on this forum with your garbage and sewer refuse, okay.

I wonder if this is a code for some stormtroopers to march in ...

0 Replies

@okie,

i got no beef with obama

only trying to illustrate a point, for better or worse

0 Replies

@okie,

The king of ignore wants an a2k member to "get lost." LOL

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

he's just trying to be like Dys.

i'm sure he meant no harm...

1 Reply

@Rockhead,

i have a very sick sense of humour, but i did not intend to offend

apologies to any who were

1 Reply

@djjd62,

not you, goofball.

Okie...

(and on the grand scale, your humor is not so dark)

1 Reply

@Rockhead,

i realize, but i wanted to put that out there

i'm not above pointing out where i may have erred

1 Reply

@djjd62,

I have people to do that for me... Wink

0 Replies

I am not sure which thread this news item should go, but perhaps this thread about how some people may have dropped the ball, that maybe we had the information on the 9/11 hijackers due to Bush's programs, but the information was not used, and the 9/11 Commission whitewashed a few things to cover up for Democratic or bureaucratic failures?

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/10/04/exclusive-witnesses-defense-department-report-suggest-cover-findings/
"EXCLUSIVE: Witnesses in Defense Dept. Report Suggest Cover-Up of 9/11 Findings
A document obtained and witnesses interviewed by Fox News raise new questions over whether there was an effort by the Defense Department to cover up a pre-9/11 military intelligence program known as "Able Danger."
...."

1 Reply

@okie,

I'm sorry, but what does this have to do with Democrats?

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

@Cycloptichorn,

well,, Let's see...
The Democrats didn't reopen the investigation and impeach Bush when they took control of Congress in 2006, so I guess that makes it their fault. Other than following ican's idiocy along those lines you can't blame any of it on the democrats.

Clinton authorized Able Danger in late 1999
Bush was in charge of Able Danger for 9 months.
The GOP Congress investigated and said there was no evidence of Atta being targeted by Able Danger.

0 Replies

Question for others in regard to invasion of privacy. My opinion is that the new screening methods used at airports are a far far greater invasion of privacy than Bush checking out a few phone calls to suspected terrorist cells overseas. In fact, this is a great illustration of how the libs went hysterical over basically nothing with what Bush did. In fact, he was only doing his job. But is the recent crap at airports necessary for them to do their jobs, that is the question? Even before the recent changes in screening, airport security always struck me as more invasive than checking suspect phone calls. I am interested in others opinion, but I think this serves to illustrate liberal hypocrisy very well.

1 Reply

@okie,

okie wrote:

Question for others in regard to invasion of privacy. My opinion is that the new screening methods used at airports are a far far greater invasion of privacy than Bush checking out a few phone calls to suspected terrorist cells overseas.

The two are equal. You have a right to privacy in both your speech and your person. I should also point out that there is ample evidence that under Bush, the NSA was tapping domestic-domestic calls, and not just those of terrorists, either. So I think this is a little inaccurate.

Quote:

In fact, this is a great illustration of how the libs went off into never never land on Bush and completely blew what he did out of proportion.

No, it's not.

Quote:

Even before the recent changes in screening, airport security always struck me as more invasive than a phone call. I am interested in others opinion, but I think this serves to illustrate liberal hypocrisy very well.

Why? Liberals are against BOTH of these things.

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

@Cycloptichorn,

Cycloptichorn wrote:

I should also point out that there is ample evidence that under Bush, the NSA was tapping domestic-domestic calls, and not just those of terrorists, either. Cycloptichorn

Well, we are also checking domestic flights. I shouldn't have to remind you also that terrorists or possible sympathizers and supporters talk between themselves here in this country. Pardon me, cyclops, but your reasoning just seems so flawed, and I knew it was when you were attacking Bush for simply doing his job. Thanks to Bush, a good man that tried to fulfill his job.

Another question in regard to these scanners, do they present any kind of a health hazard? Just curious, as I have not heard anyone talk about this.

2 Replies

@okie,

An interesting thing to me is that there are reports that the government has been monitoring right-wing groups such as the tea party because of concerns over domestic threats.

Are you still happy with the PATRIOT Act?

0 Replies

@okie,

okie wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:
I should also point out that there is ample evidence that under Bush, the NSA was tapping domestic-domestic calls, and not just those of terrorists, either. Cycloptichorn

Well, we are also checking domestic flights. I shouldn't have to remind you also that terrorists or possible sympathizers and supporters talk between themselves here in this country.

Yes, but Bush didn't have the authority to tap domestic-domestic calls without a warrant. That was the entire point of FISA and the controversy, Okie - Bush was acting illegally and you guys just didn't give a **** about it, because you were all so busy peeing your pants like a bunch of little babies out of fear of 'terror! Oncoming terror!'

Quote:

Pardon me, cyclops, but your reasoning just seems so flawed, and I knew it was when you were attacking Bush for simply doing his job. Thanks to Bush, a good man that tried to fulfill his job.

It seems flawed to you because you never remember any actual facts of the matter. The laws are clear and Bush was clearly violating them.

Quote:

Another question in regard to these scanners, do they present any kind of a health hazard? Just curious, as I have not heard anyone talk about this.

There is some evidence that they do indeed present health hazards, but it's not conclusive. It doesn't matter though, because the whole thing is a ******* joke anyway. It's security theater.

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

@Cycloptichorn,

The illegality issue is only your liberal radical Democratic opinion, cyclops. Face it, you listen to radicals like Moveon.org and some of the other Soros funded groups. As I recall, Bush got legal advice before he did anything in regard to national security.

1 Reply

@okie,

okie wrote:

The illegality issue is only your liberal radical Democratic opinion, cyclops.

It's not an opinion, it's a fact. Try reading the laws in question - though I know you won't bother to do so.

The fact that the FISA court even EXISTS should prove to you that the calls were illegal. That's what the court was FOR. Do you not remember even the most basic facts of this matter?

Quote:

Face it, you listen to radicals like Moveon.org and some of the other Soros funded groups.

I never once have visited a moveon.org site, I don't get their emails, and I don't give them money. So, you're full of ****. I should also point out that you regularly regurgitate opinions forwarded and backed by very rich Republicans who are looking to manipulate politics in the same way you accuse Soros of, yet you never seem to think it's a problem on your side.

Truly, the 'soros-boo!' attack is the weakest of all the Conservative criticisms these days. Nobody gives a **** about him except for you nutjobs.

Quote:

As I recall, Bush got legal advice before he did anything in regard to national security.

He paid lawyers to tell him what he wanted to hear. They invented excuses for him to get away with breaking the law. This doesn't mean that he was legally allowed to do so. This is just a stupid thing to say, Okie; if your lawyer advises that it's okay for you to break the law, do you think you shouldn't be held responsible?

Cycloptichorn

2 Replies

@Cycloptichorn,

Do we know that these airport screenings are legal, cyclops? I have never heard of anybody proving they are. In fact, just as Bush's actions were controversial, so is airport security. Should we impeach Obama now over this? See the following:
http://www.abajournal.com/news/article/aclu_gets_400_complaints_about_airport_security_experts_divided_on_suits/
"Experts Divided on Constitutionality of New Airport Screening Procedures"

P.S. I am grateful to Bush for what he did to protect the country. In fact, I think what he did had more justification than the techniques now used in airports. After all, Bush was protecting the entire country, whereas airport security might protect just one flight.

1 Reply

America... Spying on Americans

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know